Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), which prohibits workplace discrimination based on several "protected classes," including religion, employers have a duty to accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of employees, where employers know about such religious beliefs, such religious beliefs conflict with employment requirements, and accommodating such religious beliefs does not create "undue hardship." In Weathers v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., No. 09 C 5493, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125880 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2011), a federal district court concluded that employers who direct their employees to categorically refrain from discussing religious beliefs at work—even in response to questions raised by other co-workers—may violate Title VII's prohibition against religious discrimination.

Pertinent Facts

FedEx employed Weathers as one of its Direct Sales Managers. Weathers, a self-described conservative evangelical Christian, believed a central tenet of his religion obligated him to answer questions about his religious beliefs whenever asked—including when approached by co-workers. Allegedly, Weathers, in communications with one of his direct reports, referenced a biblical passage to illustrate his understanding of the level of deference an employee should afford his or her supervisor. Weathers's direct report filed an internal complaint and FedEx conducted an internal investigation in response. FedEx did not identify a specific violation of its religious discrimination policy, but informed Weathers, in writing, that discussions of religion with other employees—even if initiated by other employees—"must cease." Interestingly, notwithstanding FedEx's written directive to Weathers that his discussion of religion "must cease," Weathers's supervisor subsequently asked Weathers to discuss his understanding of the term "atheist."

Weathers e-mailed management to seek clarification concerning the extent to which he could discuss his religion at work, writing "[m]y faith directs me to be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks me to give a reason for the hope that is within me." Purportedly, FedEx did not respond to Weathers's e-mail. Weathers then orally requested clarification, to which FedEx allegedly informed Weathers that he could not discuss his religion at work because doing so constitutes a "detrimental act." Less than one year later, FedEx demoted Weathers, purportedly in response to poor performance and the erosion of his direct reports' trust. Weathers subsequently resigned and filed suit against FedEx.

Legal Impact

The Court first articulated the basic set of circumstances Weathers must show to state a claim for religious discrimination under his "failure to accommodate" theory of discrimination: (1) that Weathers had a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) that he had informed FedEx of his religious belief; and (3) that his practice or belief was the basis for an adverse employment action. According to the Court, assuming Weathers is able to establish the foregoing factors, FedEx must show that it either reasonably accommodated Weathers or that doing so would cause undue hardship. Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that Weathers came forward with enough disputed evidence to justify a trial on his "failure to accommodate" discrimination claim.

Significantly, the Court determined that a jury could conclude that Weathers's e-mail to management, confirming apologetics as an important tenet of his religion, constituted a request for accommodation for his sincerely-held religious beliefs. The Court reiterated that employees are not required to invoke the "magic word" "accommodation" to trigger the protections afforded by Title VII. Although the Court determined that Weathers was not constructively discharged, it opined, "an employer also commits an adverse employment action when there are changes to the employee's work conditions including subjecting an employee to humiliating, degrading,…or otherwise significant negative alteration in his work place environment." Ultimately, the Court determined that FedEx's failure to respond to Weathers's e-mail "silenced" him and rendered him "unable to exercise his religious belief and unable to discuss a subject of broad scope and of great importance to him." Also, Weathers's supervisor's initiation of the discussion about "atheism" placed Weathers in an "uncomfortable, and perhaps humiliating, position of being told he could not discuss his religion, despite his belief that he had to do so, while simultaneously being asked to join religious conversations." According to the Court, "[a] reasonable jury could conclude that this treatment constituted an adverse employment action."

Take Away

Many religious faiths obligate believers to proselytize or communicate with others about the tenets underlying their faith. Thus, the Weathers decision is an important reminder that employers must carefully scrutinize all workplace communications concerning religion as possible requests for religious accommodation—especially because employees need not use "magic words" to request accommodation. Moreover, the Weathers decision illustrates the danger of categorically prohibiting religious communications at work—even if harassment of co-workers is a concern (as it was in this case). Employers must evaluate each request for religious accommodation on a case-by-case basis, and must be prepared to substantiate "undue hardship" when accommodation is not appropriate.

Legal Disclaimer

The Employment and Labor Law Dispatcher Blog is made available by Ruder Ware to provide a general understanding of some of the legal issues relating to the transportation industry. This site does not provide specific legal advice and you should not use the information contained on this site to address your specific situation without consulting with legal counsel that is well versed in employment and labor laws and regulations. By using the Employment and Labor Law Dispatcher Blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and Ruder Ware or any individual attorney. Postings on this site do not represent the views of our clients. This site may link to other information resources on the Internet. These sites are not endorsed or supported by Ruder Ware, and Ruder Ware does not vouch for the accuracy or reliability of any information provided therein.

Please do not send any confidential information to anyone at the firm before an attorney-client relationship is formally established. Any email communication submitted in response to this blog will not be considered confidential and will not be protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege.

For further information regarding the articles on this blog, contact Ruder Ware through our primary website, www.ruderware.com